About 90 percent of this extra energy goes into the oceans. But meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder says he would like to understand why more heat is going into the deep ocean. “Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred,” says Pielke, “and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.”

These large changes in ocean content reveal that the Earth’s surface is not a great place to look for a planetary energy imbalance. “This means this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend,” he says. “Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change, it illustrates a defect in using the two-dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.”

David Appell’s entire article about the recent pause in global warming is worth a read. It was also the topic of Judith Curry’s post more on the ‘pause’. There, in a comment yesterday, Roger Pielke Sr. provided his complete answer to David Appell’s interview question. Roger was also kind enough to email me his full reply with the italics, underlined and boldface text intact. It’s as follows:

#########

Hi David

Here is my reply to your question

What do you think of Trenberth’s recent paper on ocean warming (attached)?

Balmaseda et al, Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of

global ocean heat content, GRL

They obtain an ocean warming, for 2000-2009, of 1.19 W/m2.

Does that change any of your concerns about models overestimating net

radiative forcing, such as you wrote in Physics Today in 2007 (also

attached)?

My Answer

1. The recognition that ocean heat content changes can be used to diagnose the global radiative imbalance in Watts per meter squared, that I discussed in my paper

is applied in the Balmaseda et al 2013 paper. This, as I reported in my Physics Today article, is the much more robust approach to assess global warming and cooling, than using the global annual average surface temperature trend.

The Balmaseda et al paper is a step forward in understanding the changes of heat content.

2. However, there are substantive, unanswered questions that their paper introduces.

(i) First, they report that

“In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m.”

This change in heat content is a marked difference from what they report for the earlier years as illustrated in their Figure 1. They can only speculate on how this could have occurred; i.e. they write [boldfaced highlight added]

“….that changes in the atmospheric circulation are instrumental for the penetration of the warming into the ocean, although the mechanisms at work are still to be established. One possibility suggested by Lee and McPhaden [2008], is related to the modified subduction pathways in response to changes in the subtropical gyres resulting from changes of the trade winds in the tropics (Figure S04), but whether as low frequency variability or a longer term trend remains an open question. The 2000–2006 warming trend is likely associated with the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) in both experiments (see BMW13).”

Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred (and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years), however, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.

(ii) Moreover, how could this heat be transferred to depths below 700m without being been seen in the upper 700m of the ocean? [and this is a question also on the transfer of heat to between 300m and 700m without being seen in the upper 300m].

This absence of observable heat transfer through the upper 300m of the ocean is an issue that must be resolved.

3. There are also major implications for their findings even if they are robust.

(i) First, they report on a rate of heating that reads

the latest decade being significantly higher (1.19 ± 0.11 W m-2).

While, this is larger than found in the past, it is still less than the best estimate of the global average radiative forcing reported in the IPCC 2007 report (1.6 ± 0.6 to 2.4 W m-2 total net anthropogenic plus 0.12 ± 0.06 to 0.30 W m-2 from solar irradiance changes).

Since their reported diagnosed radiative imbalance for the last decade is 1.19 ± 0.11 W m-2 – which includes both the radiative forcings and all of the feedbacks (including from water vapor), this indicates that either the IPCC best estimate of the total radiative forcings by the IPCC is in error, and/or the radiative feedbacks in the climate system are a net negative.

(ii) Another very significant conclusion of their study, if it is correct, is that when they report that

about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m.

[and from their Figure 1, the percentage below 300m since 2003 is clearly well above 50%!]

this means that this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend.

Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change (i.e. paraphrasing from other sources “we need to remain below a +2C change”),it illustrates a defect in using the two dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.

“La Niña events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers.”

If this is a real effect, than this is a muting of the radiative effect as this deep layer warming is unlikely to be reemitted back into the atmosphere in short time periods in large amounts (of Joules) as it would diffuse horizontally and vertically, at depth, in the ocean.

(iv) Also, the latest real world measurement of upper ocean heat content; [see the attachment in my e-mail from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/] continues to show, little if any significant recent warming.

(v) Finally, with respect to the change in slope, this occurred when the ARGO network achieved world-wide coverage. This raises the suspicion that it is the date quality and coverage that remains more of an issue before 2003 than concluded in Balmaseda et al paper when they excluded the ARGO data.

Please let me know if you have any follow up questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Best Regards

Roger Sr.

#########

CLOSING

When Roger wrote [my boldface]…

Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred (and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years), however, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.

If – and that’s a big IF – the heat is going into the deep ocean then you can kiss goodbye to CAGW. CO2 can never ever heat up the deep ocean enough to raise Earth’s atmospheric temperature by a measurable amount.

This is pathetic, demonstrating the almost complete absence of true science in Climate Alchemy. The biggest transfer of heat in the oceans is the partial molar enthalpy of mixing of water of different ionic strength. That is an isothermal process under most circumstances and controlled by diffusion over variable boundary layer thicknesses.

Until there are some good minds in the subject they will continue to thrash around inventing yet more reasons not to junk the bad science with which they started out. The Atmosphere is self controlling no matter what [CO] you throw at it. The ‘missing heat’ isn;’t missing because it was never there to start with.

Perhaps the best thing would be to introduce a competition for the best new start to the science so the old people associated with poor thinking can be granted sinecures where they can’t cause any more damage to the careers of promising young scientists, currently forced to support scientific garbage akin to Lysenkoism. What next; Obama to introduce the death penalty for ‘deniers’ whilst the new Little Ice Age wreaks havoc on economies?

The sea is getting warmer by 0.0000001C per century or whatever it is.

Since I found it very hard to scare myself stupid about a 2C rise in atmospheric temperatures – where we live, breathe, grow things and do most everything else – imagine how much more difficult it will be to frighten me about an undetectable temperature rise in somewhere where we don’t.

A reasonable answer to rise in temperature below 700m is volcanic activity.

The AGW narrative deliberately misrepresents the amount of ocean volcanic activity, and volcanic activity in general as it deliberately misrepresents that man made fossil fuel combustion carbon dioxide can be told apart from volcanic production:

Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-25
Revision 2 ISO:2011-Dec-11
“Abstract
A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”

From which:

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

“In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by one researcher, rather than “scientists” in general. More importantly, this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach’s estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach’s seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. If the statement of the USGS concerning volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus, it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than professional opinion.

The global warmers have done it again and Dr. Pielke has called them out on it. Ocean warming at depth is merely an artifact of sampling changes. For,as he pointed out, how can heat transit from the surface to the depths without being detected in transit? Trenberth’s missing heat has become as the space alien of the old sci-fi story “Who Goes There?”

But first he gives us a pleasant little surprise. He confirms something that I have been repeating for some years now: That the high surface temperature on Venus is not the result of runaway global warming but rather a simple adiabatic effect of the weight of the huge Venusian atmosphere. Hansen writes:

“Venus today has a surface pressure of about 90 bars, compared with 1 bar on Earth. The Venus atmosphere is mostly CO2. The huge atmospheric depth and CO2 amount are the reason Venus has a surface temperature of nearly 500 degrees C.”

But Hansen has invented a “get out of jail free” card for terrestrial warming called “Climate system inertia”. Now that past climate prophecies have been falsified by the temperature standstill of the last 17 years, there is an urgent need for Warmists to regroup. And Hansen has done that by moving the goalposts. He says that the climate is so slow to respond to input changes that it will takes centuries for the prophesied warming to occur. That of course make his prophecies effectively unfalsifiable. He writes:

“Climate system inertia means that it will take several centuries for the eventual extreme global warming mentioned above to occur, if we are so foolish as to burn all of the fossil fuel resources”

Why we should believe the new prophecies when the old ones have failed utterly, Hansen does not tell us. But we should clearly be most wary of statements that are not only unproven but unprovable.

But Hansen will continue to have fun in his own little world with his assumptions and models — JR.”

I find it so strange that so called scientists work so hard trying to suggest that heat can flow from lower to higher temperatures. When all they need to admit is that they wrongly guessed the polarity or size of a feedback coefficient.

At least three flaws here.
1. The radiative imbalance is not supposed to equal the increase in radiative forcing since most of the increase is sent back to space after heating the surface.
2. OHC 700 m unchanged at a high level and OHC 2000 m rising does not mean the transport is undetected. A constant flow from a high temp reservoir is transporting more energy than from a lower temp reservoir.
3. The 2000–2006 period is unsuited for the purpose since pre- and post-ARGO transition data clearly is not comparable. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_0-360E_-24-24N_na.png

With the greatest respect to Roger Pielke and his carefully worded scientific response to Trenberth’s paper, carefully and deliberately picking out the faults in his argument, you don’t need to be a trained climate scientist submitting papers to well known science journals in order to see that Trenberth’s theory is basically pants! Though I guess it does help if you want others to take you seriously! Trenberth has no viable mechanism to explain why, suddenly and unexpectedly, global warming switched from manifesting as land and ocean surface temp increases (which one would intuitively expect) to then completely disappearing into the deep oceans (somehow bypassing the surface layers) where it cannot be objectively and quantitatively measured. Postulating that this is somehow due to abnormal circulation patterns just doesn’t (excuse the pun) cut any ice. It seems obvious to me that this is a purely speculative paper submitted by an ardent warmist in order to avoid admitting that there is a much simpler explanation for the lack of observed global warming, i.e. it isn’t happening.

So there is a jump in the data series that coincides with the deployment of new instruments, there is no physical mechanism to account for the jump, but it is declared “real” anyhow because it fits the agenda. Wow. Some settled science. That sure is worth a few more million dollar of funding.

Deep ocean heat content is invoked by Trenberth as an Excuse rather than an Explanation. I am sure that they can get the model to match, but in absence of a physical mechanism (i imagine a tornado-type gyre ?) to connect shallow and deep to rapidly mix the upper and deep ocean in a way we have never seen before – this is pure speculation. Deus ex Machina, ‘and then a Miracle Occurred’ type stuff.

Thanks for letting us see the whole of the argument. Quite informative.

“Peter Stroud says:
May 9, 2013 at 2:15 am
I find it so strange that so called scientists work so hard trying to suggest that heat can flow from lower to higher temperatures. When all they need to admit is that they wrongly guessed the polarity or size of a feedback coefficient.

johnmarshall says:
May 9, 2013 at 2:23 am
Trenberth got it wrong because he treats earth as a flat plate with 24/7 insolation from a cold sun. No wonder he has problems.”

/ Gents, I find it most amazing that you two have the temerity to come up with statements that clearly applies to OLD science.We are talking about CLIMATESCIENCE(tm) here and rules and laws are made up as and when needed to support the fad of the day. Sadly, with these posts you two have effectively stopped your future careers in CLIMATESCIENCE(tm) because in order to enter that field you have to be a Merlin wannabe who “live in the land of Myth and in the time of Magic” where real world physics does not apply and I can not see how you two would fit in with that crowd because you are too deep into OLD science. /sarc off

Besides, sadly it is not just Trenberth that buys into the concept of flat earth/cold sun, too many who call themselves skeptics do that also. It seems to be some kind of anathema that subjects people to immediate abuse and ad hominem attacs if they suggest that we should start with 1361W/meter squared at TOA and work our way downwards, which is what one would do if normal physics laws applied. Not so in this very very very very special case, here we first have to average together all emissions ranging from at least minus 60 degrees C to plus 60 degrees C (look at the standard deviation) arriving at an average of MINUS 18 degrees C and then twist our minds to believe that the “hot” sunshine you can feel on your skin is actually MINUS 18 degrees C, then we have to invent some MAGIC GHE to make up for the difference between the GLT of plus 15 degrees C and the suns MINUS 18 degrees C.
It is amazing to see how fairy tales and propaganda can marginalise reason and real science.

According to S-B: 1361W/m2 = 393.61K, 340.25W/m2 = 278.33K. / Of course nothing happens at
393.61K that does not happen at 278.33K. /sarc off

How to find the “missing heat [if there is any]”.
Model:
1) Sun drives Trade Winds and heats the Pacific/Atlantic Oceans specifically in the perpendicular [Sun directly overhead] locations.
2) Trade Winds [this example during Sun approaching Tropic of Cancer] “Bulge up the warm water” in Indonesia/Gulf of Mexico.
3) Warm water is driven North/South in the Pacific and some subducted. Warm water in the Atlantic, due to geography, flows only north as the Gulf Stream.
4) Warm water gets trapped in the Pacific Gyres, until it is pushed into the colder water regions. Yes, you can push water by having a higher pressure behind it.
5) Warm water in the Atlantic does not sink due to salinity changes. It sinks since it has lost its heat, and become colder. Since the currents continue to flow the cooler water is pushed under.
6) Cooler water returns to the points of origin.

Measurements:
1) Measure height of Indonesian/Gulf of Mexico “Bulge”.
2) Measure current flows at surface and depth.
3) Measure heat stored in the Gyres, surface and depth.
4) Measure flow rates of upwelling s at Western South America coast at the Tropic of Cancer. Western African coast at the Tropic of Cancer.
5) Measure temperatures of upwelling s.

Determine Results:
1) Compare heat in at “Bulges” to returning temperatures at upwelling s.
2) Determine heat leaving at the Poles.
3) Determine heat remaining in the Oceans.
4) Determine heat dissipated into the Atmosphere.
5) Form a new Weather/Climate model based on Ocean heats and Sun inputs!

The ocean down to 2000m is absorbing 0.46 W/m2/year under the Argo float measurements. (below 2000m looks to be very close to Zero given the two studies done on it).

But the total net forcing is now +2.28 W/m2/year according to the estimates which will be used in the upcoming IPCC AR5 report.

Furthermore, we should be seeing +1.7 W/m2 of feedbacks right now given the 0.7C temperature increase we have seen since 1900.

So, the energy math just doesn’t work.

There is either energy accumulation hiding somewhere (and a lot of it – really a lot more than should be able to hide from us) or the postive forcing estimates are way too high or the feedbacks are net negative -1.7 W/m2 instead of a positive +1.7 W/m2.

3.0C per doubling only works if the feedbacks are more than +2.0 W/m2/C. If they are much less than that or especially if they are negative, the theory of global warming will eventually be renamed “the great global warming scare of the late 20th Century”.

The only mystery bigger than how the missing heat sunk into the deep ocean without being detected, is why Peilke Sr. would even acknowledge and comment to David Appell. He has no credibility as far as I am concerned.

Apart from situations where water is densest at 4 deg C will sink below water at 0-3 deg C ie heat can sink in water, which is why ponds freeze from the surface; this search for heat increase below 700 metres is sounding more and more desperate. Has the layer of water at the bottom of the ocean which is denser than water at 0 deg C increased in thickness? The average temperature for all ocean water is about 3.5 deg C

Myrrh says:
May 9, 2013 at 1:21 am
Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach’s seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites.
================
There is a fairly reliable statistical rule of thumb that your sample size should equal the square root of the population. So, to sample 3 million volcanoes requires a sample of about 1700 volcanoes, not 10.

A sample of 10 volcanoes is representative of 100 volcanoes, not 3 million. It is a statistically meaningless sample that should have been recognized by the “experts”.

“If this is a real effect, than this is a muting of the radiative effect as this deep layer warming is unlikely to be reemitted back into the atmosphere in short time periods in large amounts (of Joules) as it would diffuse horizontally and vertically, at depth, in the ocean.

If there is a muting of the radiative effect then Trenberth’s fundamental assumptions about radiation have been wrong from the get-go. In layman’s terms, calculations of Earth’s radiation balance can no longer be based on the radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere or the surface of the earth but must include calculations for radiation effects, heat, that is sequestered for some time in some earthly physical process in the deep oceans.

Inevitably, Trenberth will find himself where Bob Tisdale has been for years, describing the physical processes such as those that make up ENSO. Then Trenberth can begin some real science.

lgl – The global average radiative imbalance equals the radiative forcing plus the radiative imbalance. Heat is in units of Joules and is a physical quantity that can be measured. The period since the full Argo deployement (2003) is the more robust time period for analysis.

The earth’s crust is much thinner under the oceans than it is under the land. If there is warming in the deep oceans without any evidence of heat moving downwards, this strongly suggests that the source of the heat is underneath the oceans.

A lot of climate science is based on the notion that very little energy is being transferred from the earth’s core to the oceans. However, if you increase the estimate of the energy from the earth’s core, then all the careful calculations get thrown out the window and you end up with a huge imbalance. Meaning that something is very wrong in the careful calculations.

The notion that the oceans stop at the ocean floor like gigantic swimming pools is dead wrong. Surface water such as lakes and oceans is a result of the water table. When the water table is higher than the land, we find surface water. When the water table is lower, there is no surface water. The water sinks into the ground.

The oceans exist because of the heat of the earth’s core. As the water sinks into the ground it eventually sinks far enough that the heat from the core turns it into steam at extremely high pressure. This pressure of steam prevents the water from sinking further. This is why we have oceans on planet earth.

Nowhere in the careful calculations is this properly dealt with. The oceans are far from understood as is the mechanism that holds them in place. Without the heat from the core there would be no oceans on planet earth. They would have long ago disappeared as they sunk towards the core.

“Coulda woulda shoulda” is a liberal’s dream of a law’s unpinnings. There is only one way to get out of this folks. Change the political leanings of our lawmakers world wide. And then be forever vigilent of the next crop of snake oil sales. Humanity will always be intrigued by that kind of cure-all against the natural ills of our world.

The heating of the oceans is a classic example of confirmation bias and the experimenter expectation effect. Surface warming has stopped, so we are left with two possibilities:

1. Either CO2 theory is wrong
2. Heat is going somewhere that is “hidden”.

Since climate science cannot admit 1, this means that 2 must be the correct answer. No matter that it contradicts observations and known physics. Option 2 must be right. Because otherwise a whole of scientists have been wrong, which they are not about to admit because they understand the consequences. The mob would rise up seeking blood.

The only mystery bigger than how the missing heat sunk into the deep ocean without being detected, is why Peilke Sr. would even acknowledge and comment to David Appell. He has no credibility as far as I am concerned.
—
This is the concept of scientific discourse. You consider and address arguments, not people and their “credibility”.

Even if climate sensitivity is somewhat less than the IPCC’s median value of about 3 degrees Celsius, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing exponentially, so a smaller value merely buys an extra decade or two until the same amount of warming is reached.

I wonder if Trenberth’s models take into account the function of water density as a result of temperature? Water is one of the few (possibly the only) naturally occurring substances which has a density which is not linear as a function of temperature, rather it is bell shaped. http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5028711871807842&pid=15.1
Which is why ice floats rather than sinks.
I also wonder if his models take into account how the extreme pressure affect the density and flow of energy.
Since I’m sure his model and data is locked up tighter than Ft. Knox, I don’t suppose we’ll ever know…

Theo Goodwin says: “Inevitably, Trenberth will find himself where Bob Tisdale has been for years, describing the physical processes such as those that make up ENSO. Then Trenberth can begin some real science.”

Trenberth has written numerous papers on ENSO, which I include as references in many of my posts. He understands the processes well. But he’s trying to force the warming of the oceans with carbon dioxide–or–he’s not being 100% forthcoming about it for any number of reasons.

Since that metric [surface theromometer readings] is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change (i.e. paraphrasing from other sources “we need to remain below a +2C change”), it illustrates a defect in using the two dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.

The ocean temps may be a better metric for assessing the global heat budget, but it’s utility as a metric in making policy is dubious. Policy-makers want to know what will happen where we live, grow crops and source potable water, not the temp change at 700 meters deep.

If global warming is now said to be primarily taking place deep in the oceans it makes the AGW hypothesis that man made CO2 traps infrared in the atmosphere, heating the surface, unlikely to be the driving mechanism since CO2 keeps going up and temperature seems to have stalled.

In addition to Pielke’s careful comments, there are other problems. The heat was found in ORAS4, the latest revision of the ECMWF ocean model which assimilated ARGO. The previous version ran hot to 700 meters and cold below. To match Argo also required an exogenous temperature calibration input to ORAS4. The revisions were detailed in Balmaseda 2012. So what was found that cannot be explained was found in a revised model, is only 2/3 of what Trenberth expected, and is still more heat than what NODC calculates from the same ARGO data.

This whole missing heat fantasy is bullshit that started with an idiotic paper by Trenberth and Fusillo (Science 16 April 2010). For the first time, Argo floats were available. “…Since 2004, approximately 3000 Argo floats have provided regular temperature soundings of the upper 2000 m of the ocean, giving new confidence in the ocean heat content assessment — …” they say. Then they display global net energy graphically and sure enough – their confidence is rewarded by disappearing energy. It starts missing in 2004 and by 2009 eighty percent of it is gone. That is claimed to be missing globally. Their buddy reviewer apparently thought it was one more great discovery by leading lights of the global warming movement and let it go through. But if you know anything about scientific experiments a red light should have come up somewhere. Here new equipment comes on line and immediately energy does a disappearing act. If I had been the reviewer I would have sent them back checking those floats and learning how they operate before rushing into print with half-baked ideas.

Trenberth has written numerous papers on ENSO, which I include as references in many of my posts. He understands the processes well. But he’s trying to force the warming of the oceans with carbon dioxide–or–he’s not being 100% forthcoming about it for any number of reasons.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It escapes me how a scientist with Trenberth’s background could attribute warmer SST to increased atm. CO2. But, then, this is the guy who is tucking the “global warming” into Davy Jones’ locker.

” . . . They would have long ago disappeared as they sunk towards the core.”

Ferd, I don’t want to be insulting here, because you usually make some good points, and even this post has some merit. But this last bit seems so questionable that I have to ask for clarification.

You are right that there is a lot about the oceans we don’t yet know, and this very factor could have a larger impact on our climate than CO2. But it seems to me that the reason the oceans do not sink to the Earth’s core is that water is less dense than iron and the other elements and compounds that comprise it. It is a simple matter of water ‘floating’ above a denser material. That may not be entirely correct, as there is no doubt steam involved in the equilibrium somewhere, but I believe density is currently accepted as the dominant mechanism by which the oceans are suspended above the earth’s crust.

Let me know if you don’t agree. More importantly; if there are articles or books that you think could point me in a different direction, please direct me to them. I’d like to try to understand this better if I can.

“This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.”

I seem to remember someone of alarmist note (Hansen or Trenberth maybe?) stating some years ago, that if the CO2 radiative imbalance resulted in heat being transferred to the deep oceans, then the Catastrophic portion of CACC goes away. Anyone remember something like this? I have been unable to locate it.

If the extra energy from more GHGs gets into the deep oceans then we have thousands of years to find sustainable alternative energy sources before any measurable effect on the atmosphere could be measured.

If it doesn’t get into the deep oceans then it is disposed of by increased evaporation, convection and a faster or larger hydrological cycle and accelerated to space thereby offsetting the effect of more GHGs.

Even the bottom of the ocean is under enough pressure to keep water from boiling at high temperature. Deep sea vents only occasionally bubble. Surface hot spots like Yellowstone still don’t put out enough ground heat to melt the snow, except next to geysers and hot pools. And even active Antarctic volcanoes remain mostly covered with ice.

Water at the bottom of lakes that never freeze over maintains the minimum winter surface temperature. Ground heat has no more effect at the bottom of the lake than it has at the dry surface. This is also true of the ocean: ground heat is negligible as it is at the surface. Cave temperatures approximate average surface temperature. Permafrost and rock are pretty good insulators.

Judging by T/CO2 delay in ice cores and by C14 dates of cold upwelling water around Antarctica, sea current turnover averages somewhere around a thousand years, and this turnover is driven not by bottom heating but by supersaline water sinking. Sea bottom temperature is the average of sinking supersaline water, most of which is brine left by polar ice formation, but some of which flows from the dry tropics like the Red Sea.

Being as this current turnover takes centuries, what we are usually observing at present is the result of climate of centuries gone by. Just as we we presently observe the effects of the LIA in current temperate glacier behavior, so we may observe the effects of the MWP in apparent sea temperature evolution. –AGF

I agree. Whenever someone resorts to lying, name-calling and bully tactics in general, you can pretty nearly always figure they are doing that because their claims and statements have no basis in fact. If you can’t win an argument by reason and facts, you try to win it by deception and force.

Recognizing and asserting that someone is grossly in error, lying or bullying to get his/her point across is not ad hominem, if there are facts to demonstrate the error or lying or bullying. But simple denial with pejoratives is ad hominem – Gleick a perfect example.

Yes. There’s only one volcanic seep whose emissions have ever been fully captured: Lake Nyos. Using the emission rate for Lake Nyos, annual world-wide volcanic CO2 could be as high as 30 gigatons (as CO2). Compare that to Gerlach’s 0.145 to 0.255 gigatons.

RobertInAz says: “I don’t think this is true: ‘Even if climate sensitivity is somewhat less than the IPCC’s median value of about 3 degrees Celsius, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing exponentially, so a smaller value merely buys an extra decade or two until the same amount of warming is reached.'”

It seems to me that including deep ocean heat sequestration and eventual (dramatic chord) release as a first order forcing wouldn’t be something the CO2 alarmists would want to do.

Logically, if the deep ocean energy sequestration and release is a first order forcing, that is currently (no pun intended) ill understood, then any past heating attributed to CO2 could simply be a past deep ocean energy release.

If it stores and releases on a cycle, the cycle is on the same order of magnitude of the presumed CO2 effect, and the cycle isn’t modeled, the error bars and the natural noise are both larger than any allegedly measured effect.

The premise of global warming/ climate change is that the CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm, which warms the surface. Accumulating deep ocean heat, without atmospheric warming, must be due to some other mechanism. Try underwater volcanoes, or something.

son of mulder says:
May 9, 2013 at 6:10 am
Apart from situations where water is densest at 4 deg C will sink below water at 0-3 deg C ie heat can sink in water, which is why ponds freeze from the surface; this search for heat increase below 700 metres is sounding more and more desperate. Has the layer of water at the bottom of the ocean which is denser than water at 0 deg C increased in thickness? The average temperature for all ocean water is about 3.5 deg C

This is only true in fresh water. I used to make this mistake too, but DesertYote showed me the saltwater data and it pretty much gets linearly denser until it freezes. It is really quite an interesting difference when you just add a little salt to the water. I don’t remember the link he gave, but it was quite informative.

When I think of the world being covered with “oceans”, I don’t think of just liquid water. Nor do I think that the ocean depth starts at the liquid water surface and extend downward to a mere 700m or 2000m for that matter. No, the earths “ocean” starts at the top of the atmosphere and extends all the way down to where the water meets a physical barrier – rock! This “model” of the ocean has all 3 (or is it 4 if you consider liquid crystal water?) phases of that next (/sarc on)dangerous molecule to be outlawed by the EPA – H20, dihydrogen oxide. (/sarc off)
This amazing molecule REGULATES dangerous levels of radiation coming from that big ball of thermonuclear radiation – our sun – every second of every day from the top of the atmosphere down. It absorbs far more infrared energy than CO2 or any other GHG. It reflects more of the entire spectrum back to space in all three phases. It radiates far more of that absorbed energy back to space than any other GHG. And it does all of this dynamically, continuously varying the degree to which it absorbs, reflects or reradiates, based on whatever local energy imbalance is present. Spacial variation in any local energy balance is quickly rebalanced by not just energy flow, but also physical transfer (wind and currents) in both lateral and vertical directions.
In reimagining the “ocean”, I would recommend that serious climate scientists need to start rethinking the whole system. Energy – heat – can’t be “lost”. Therefore, whatever static model has been dominating the discussion must give way to a dynamic model that will satisfy the flows – energy and mass. If there is no significant temperature gradient measured in the liquid ocean to explain radiative, conductive or convective heat transfer from the gaseous phase downward, then there must be a dynamic process that satisfies the energy loss upwards. Water must be actively and dynamically transferring the heat back to the top of the atmosphere and reradiating back to space – and not at a constant static rate, but rather at a rate that maintains the net overall energy balance. I agree with Willis Eschenbach’s postulated theory that storms serve as the regulator for dynamically balancing energy imbalances in our larger “ocean”.
When I imagine this larger “ocean”, I can see that there are most likely four major “layers” to it – but also many “sub-layers” within these four major layers. You can see these “layers” every evening if you stand on the shore of a tropical island and you watch the beginnings of and then the eventual approach of a daily evening thunderstorm.
The lowest layer is all liquid water – the surface of the sea. That is easy to see. Most of the radiative transfer onto our planet (in the absence of clouds) happens on, or rather to, this layer.
The next layer is between the sea surface and the third layer. Most of us not living in mountainous regions live in this second layer. In this layer a LOT of convective transfer of energy occurs (warm moist air rises up through this layer, or hangs around and makes us sweat), a LOT of conductive transfer (we are cooled by physical contact to rain and snow) and some radiative transfer.
The next layer is also easy to see. It starts at say 1000 m above the oceans surface (this height varies on any given day and is based on the local RH, air pressure and temperature) and is clearly defined at the bottom of the clouds that are forming. Above this layer, any slight perterbation, ionized gas molecule or dust particle will begin to cause the excess energy stored in the gas phase of saturated water vapor to quickly condense. I imagine that this layer has a “fuzzy” boundary simply because in the absence of any perturbation, super saturation can occur. Billowing cloud formation above this layer is visual evidence to me of a runaway “crashing” of water liquid out of super saturated water vapor in air. As clouds are forming any one (not just the special scientists that call themselves “climate” scientists) can SEE energy transfer occuring. Water vapor turns from a clear gaseous state to a liquid state that scatters light. The now scattered sunlight is reflected back to space (the first part of the dynamic energy rebalancing act).
Most of these water droplets are initially too light to spontaneously fall back to the sea, and instead do two amazing things. First they self organize into “clouds” – which seems to defy thermodynamics! How they do this might have something to do with the second thing they do. Dr. Gerald Pollack in the video “Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water’s Edge” postulates that IR energy that is absorbed by these liquid water droplets drives a natural self-organizing capability of the water molecules to create a liquid crystaline “skin” completely surrounding the droplets and penetrating a surprising distance into each one and in so doing actively separate charge so that the droplets that have formed have a net surface charge. This high surface tension “skin” layer of water has been proposed as the “4th phase” of water. In any event, water droplets in clouds absorb solar radiative energy at a higher elevation, (preventing solar radiation from warming the liquid in the ocean below any further sunlight, and contributing yet another element of the dynamic energy rebalancing act) both charging and warming them and pushing them higher into the third layer of the larger “ocean”. I don’t know for sure but I would imagine that if your eyes could see in the infrared portion of the spectrum that corresponds to water’s IR spectrum, that you would SEE clouds giving off light as the condensation was occuring. Has anyone ever attempted to measure the net IR energy “pulse” coming off of a storm from outer space?
The fourth layer is much higher and occurs more infrequently – only when thermal imbalance and water vapor transport merits the need for rebalancing of a massive heat buildup. It is also evident however as a distinctive layer. It is characterized with a flat bottom and an “anvil” shape. At this elevation, the temperature and pressure have dropped so low that saturated water vapor that has been transported this high, as well as liquid droplets suspended in upwelling winds, experience a runaway “crashing” and instant freezing to form the cystalline water – snow flakes. Once again this phase change from liquid state to solid state involves HUGE amounts of energy transfer, is highly dynamic, and only occurs where local energy imbalance drives the process.
At all four layers of this larger “ocean” phase transitions occur from one phase of water to another. Whenever, a phase transition occurs a MUCH larger energy transfer occurs than just radiative, conductive or convective transfer – because changes in entropy are also occurring. I suspect that the reason one can “see” clouds when taking IR pictures from space at night of large tropical storms, is that HUGE amounts of radiative energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is being given off. I supect that during thunderstorms besides massive amounts of light being given off by lightning, that clouds also “glow” in the IR. And that the amount and intensity of this radiative energy exacly matches the amount of energy given up during condensation or crystalization at the two upper atmospheric levels of the larger “ocean”. And that this dynamic release of radiative energy is where all that “lost” energy from the atmosphere can be accounted for. In concurrence with Willis, I postulate that the radiative balance on our blue ball is not a static event but a dynamic process and that water serves as the magic energy balancing molecule.
The middle layers of our larger “ocean” of water (mixed with air) are the most interesting, most dynamic, and IMHO where all the unaccounted for energy movement is happening. They are also where all the “weather” happens. Characterizing only the “surface” temperature at one boundary of this “ocean” and saying that it’s average annual or decadal drift must be used to accurately predict scary long term future trends and therefore massive changes in economic policy, completely ignoring the highly dynamic nature of the whole water cycle, is laughable and IMHO a bit narcissistic on the part of us puny humans.
So what explains the very very small “average” changes in the surface temperature over any given year, decade, century. Naturally occuring long time scale oscillations like solar activity, ocean currents, . . . (/sarc on) and the 17 year cicada, yea that’s the ticket, cicada farts (/sarc off). Seriously, WHO CARES. If the water cycle can buffer a 100 degree swing in any given year, and has done so since man has been keeping records of such things, what is so scary about 1 or 2 degree fluctuations in average air temperature over a decade?

A) the thermohaline circulation takes a long, long time. Something like 800 years. The notion that latter 20th century heat is showing up below 700m now is difficult to credit.

B) Because of that long time lag, I would expect the heating below 700m could easily be from warm waters which downwelled ages ago coming back up again. An indication of that would be a temperature gradient which starts increasing at some depth as a function of depth.

C) If heat is being transferred to the depths from the surface, then there must be a gradient of decreasing temperature with depth somewhere where the heat is downwelling, and that gradient is not decreasing in time. Is there any patch of the oceans in the ARGO data which shows such a phenomenon?

“Trenberth has written numerous papers on ENSO, which I include as references in many of my posts. He understands the processes well. But he’s trying to force the warming of the oceans with carbon dioxide–or–he’s not being 100% forthcoming about it for any number of reasons.”

Trenberth’s problem might be described as philosophical, methodological, ideological, or all of those things.

In a nutshell, Trenberth might be able to describe the known physical processes of ENSO but he does not believe in them. To paraphrase the late W. V. Quine, “He does not quantify over them.” In other words, he does not recognize them as the actually existing, real world, discrete processes that they are. He treats them as epiphenomenal. Specifically, he treats the measurements associated with ENSO as a kind of numerical index whose numbers refer to nothing real.

For Trenberth, numbers refer to something real only to the extent that they can be associated with some cause of global warming and we all know the name of his favorite cause. Thus, his confusion about “natural variability.” When he encounters that term, he understands “cause of climate change.” He has not a clue what genuine scientists are talking about when they refer to “natural variability.” (They are talking about the range of our historical data.)

“It escapes me how a scientist with Trenberth’s background could attribute warmer SST to increased atm. CO2. But, then, this is the guy who is tucking the “global warming” into Davy Jones’ locker.”

Trenberth’s general idea, which he has been unable to develop at all, is that there is a great deal of vertical mixing that goes on in the oceans and this mixing takes warmth from the surface and transfers it to the deep oceans. So, all he has to do now is “discover” (model…cough…cough) how the mixing works. Then he will have his missing heat.

However, as Pielke Sr indicates, if Trenberth concedes that the deep oceans sequester heat from manmade CO2, among other things, then he must concede the principle that any physical process can sequester what Pielke Sr. calls “radiative effects.” In other words, he would have to concede that even the atmosphere can sequester radiative effects. But once you make that concession, the radiative theory must be totally re-evaluated. “Top of the Atmosphere radiation measurements” no longer mean what they once meant.

To cut to the chase, Trenberth’s latest “hypothesis” makes the processes of vertical mixing in the oceans more important than the manmade CO2 blanket that supposedly “feeds” them. (Actually, Trenberth has been forced to the right path but he is so averse to empirical investigation that he cannot see that empirical investigation of ocean mixing is what he is now promoting.)

The closer one gets to the core of the earth the hotter it gets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole. So this would make the water at the base of the Marianas Trench warmer than the water 1000 ft above it; therefore, it would seem to me that convection would cause the lower/warmer water to move upward. (Willis Eschenbach gave a great example of how this convection works in an article where he described swimming (?) in the Pacific after night fall. Why is convection that occurs in the deep sea conceptually any different than what occurs in the atmosphere? It would seem to me that process would just be slower. The clouds in the ocean environment could be plankton?

If this an incredibly ignorant comment, I want to assure you that I will learn more as time goes on. Point me to an article if you will until than, I will go back to wiki to continue my education on this incredible subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
…With the expected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a projected 300 °C (570 °F), at which the drill bit would no longer work.

“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. “Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”

“During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining trend in ocean temperatures. In February 2007, the author of the paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data used for the analysis. After eliminating incorrect data, the trend to that time remained cooling, but below the level of statistical significance.”

“Data results from year 2008 and after”

“…Josh Willis, in an article published on the NASA Earth Observatory web site states that after correcting the errors in the Argo thermometer measurements, the results show that the world’s oceans have been absorbing additional energy and have been warming. ”

Did everybody get that? Initially the ARGO floats did not show ocean warming but now after correcting the errors they do.

@stacase
Someone mentioned that adjustment paper on here, but I never really bought the need for the adjustments nor the method for determining the magnitude of correction. As I recall it was something like “The data didn’t fit the climatology assumptions so we adjusted it to match the climatology”. Seems a little circular to me, but that’s the state of the science.

When I search for information on the temperature of deep ocean water I get results like this one from Wikipedia – “Deep ocean water has a very low temperature, typically from 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F), and a salinity of about 3.5% (35 psu).[”

Well no wonder all that heat can hide there.

What is a wonder is why this claim was never made during the period when atmospheric temperatures were rising ?

This heat transfer would take a bit of time to reach any depth at all if due to ocean mixing. What goes down comes back up in Kelvin waves. More importantly that anthropogenic signal is not in the equatorial records. Period. So it must be riding on top in warm pools till it gets to the Arctic ocean where it may indeed sink. The problem with that is historically we don’t have Arctic temperature records of natural incoming and outgoing current temperature variation at depth and on the surface. It is entirely possible that the minuscule CO2 warming is within the bounds of oceaning natural variation.

“The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.”

Really? No error bars, no kidding? We are expected to believe that they can measure an annual change of 0.002°C?

That is the mean result from the executive summary. A few pages later:

“We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1°C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m–2…”

I don’t know why they don’t give error bars for degrees C, but they are not claiming absolute precision for ocean heat content.

As an inverse absorption-circulation pattern, unmeasured because not actually observed, this posited “bathymetric warming” is simply ludicrous junk-science. Why not just attribute high-temperature fluidic sinking to Aristotle’s “impetus” and have done with it? Everyone knows that archers shoot arrows parallel to the ground, which missiles then cease moving forward and fall straight down once their original “impetus” is exhausted.

Come to think of it, this principle applies not only to Trenberth’s anti-entropic hypothesis, but to AGW Catastrophists in general as to Trenberth himself: Having shot their bolts, “exhausted AGW impetus” as ’twere, they lie supine waving arms-and-legs in air crying, “Dead bug! Dead bug!”

“Coulda woulda shoulda” is a liberal’s dream of a law’s unpinnings. There is only one way to get out of this folks. Change the political leanings of our lawmakers world wide.

When I was a child I thought the world’s problems could be solved by killing a few dictators: Stalin, Mao, Franco and others who I forget. What a waste of ammunition that would have been. If you think the world would be improved by getting rid of all the ‘liberals’ you are a very naive young whippersnapper.

“When I was a child I thought the world’s problems could be solved by killing a few dictators: Stalin, Mao, Franco … What a waste of ammunition that would have been. If you think the world would be improved by getting rid of all the ‘liberals’ you are … naive … . [Commie Bob, 5/9/13, 1849]

Just as climate is local, not global, so, too, tyranny acts locally, not globally.

If Stalin or H–l–r or Mow or Idi A–m–n or you-name-it had been assassinated a year or five or ten years before they died, MILLIONS of lives almost certainly would have been saved. Certainly, millions of people would have lived free, home with their families, instead of in state orphanages, peacefully earning a living as a physicist (Sakharov?) or teacher or pastor, instead of suffering in prison for the remaining years of their lives.

A human life is priceless. Even one life saved from unjust suffering or death improves the world. For, unlike the global climate, morally, “no man is an island.”

If it took 100,000 bullets to assassinate each of the dictators you listed before they murdered others, that ammunition would not have been “a waste.”

fefdberple said: “There is a fairly reliable statistical rule of thumb that your sample size should equal the square root of the population.”

This seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the Square Root Law. What this law states is that the precision of the sample average increases as the square root of the sample size N. The population size is irrelevant (so long as it’s much larger than the sample size). The population average is usually (95% of the time) within the sample average plus or minus 2*sigma / sqrt(N); where sigma is the standard deviation of the population. Hence, if a sample size is good enough for its average to represent some population average (i.e. good enough for it to be statistically significant), then a larger population (with the same standard deviation) wouldn’t require a larger sample.

Of course, a sample of 7 volcanoes isn’t very good for establishing a population means, whatever the population size, especially when the standard deviation isn’t independently known.

“Coulda woulda shoulda” is a liberal’s dream of a law’s unpinnings. There is only one way to get out of this folks. Change the political leanings of our lawmakers world wide. And then be forever vigilent of the next crop of snake oil sales. Humanity will always be intrigued by that kind of cure-all against the natural ills of our world.

“….that changes in the atmospheric circulation are instrumental for the penetration of the warming into the ocean, although the mechanisms at work are still to be established.”

Hmmm, having followed this for several years, I recall the argument being put forth that while CO2 forcing only directly accounted for about 1/3rd the observed warming rate the lack of an alternative mechanism statistically fingerprinted CO2 primary forcing as being responsible for all the observed warming. . . .resulting in projections of 3.0degC warming for a doubling of CO2.

So does that mean that now that the CO2 inbalance rests on an unidentified mechanism? One has to wonder how the IPCC snake will digest that.

“Does anyone want to speculate about why the NODC removed their long-term annual ocean heat content for the depths of 0-2000 meters from their website?”

That one is probably easy. It was removed because the results are more in the nature of a speculative mixed proxy estimate of ocean heat as opposed to the actual measurements they obtained and they don’t want it served to them later as a meal.

Its probably the right thing to do as the personnel crossover between our public reporting agencies and the businesses selling yellow journalism packaged in artfully-done photoshopped glossies for the coffee table market has grown a lot faster than ocean heat and there is a need to establish some internal controls over one hand feeding the other hand.

“Coulda woulda shoulda” is a liberal’s dream of a law’s unpinnings. There is only one way to get out of this folks. Change the political leanings of our lawmakers world wide.

When I was a child I thought the world’s problems could be solved by killing a few dictators: Stalin, Mao, Franco and others who I forget. What a waste of ammunition that would have been. If you think the world would be improved by getting rid of all the ‘liberals’ you are a very naive young whippersnapper.

I don’t see where Pamela Gray was advocating the violent change of the political leanings of the political class around the world. I think her position was more about how we change the political equations that drive politicians to take redistributionist policies as the easy way out. This will actually require advocacy and education of the scientific method to the population. It seems that that re-education needs to start in our academic institutions where the scientific method has been replaced by “post-normal science” and other political constructs masquerading as science. There also needs to be an extreme effort to educate people on the common logical fallacies passed off by politicians to scam the voters. Listen to any political speech by just about any politician of whatever stripe, and you will hear appeal to authority, false equivalence, and conclusions loaded up with emotionally charged language which have no logical bearing on the facts in evidence. If the people were to catch on to these techniques and punish at the poles the politicians who practice them, this would end. Politicians only do it because it works!

“The closer one gets to the core of the earth the hotter it gets…”
==========================================================
Two big fallacies:
1) It’s not so much “the closer to the core” as “the further from the surface,” that matters. That is, the T gradient is steepest near the surface since it’s cooled by the atmosphere. And ocean bottom T is lower than average dry surface, hence, colder than most caves.
2) Hot water rises (unless it’s extra salty).
–AGF

“If you think the world would be improved by getting rid of all the ‘liberals’ you are a very naive young whippersnapper.”

I just want to speak to that specific point, not necessarily in reference to the ongoing discussion of the principals. In Nature, it is inherent that equilibrium cannot be established without at least two equally powerful opposing forces. If you eliminate one of those forces, the setpoint drifts until it encounters an equally matched resistance.

That is why the eliminationist fantasies of people on either side of the political spectrum are so misguided. No matter if your intentions are pure, there are always extremists even on your side who, given tepid resistance, will pull the setpoint beyond where even you want it to go. By maintaining robust opposition, we maintain our equilibrium. I am very alarmed by people who virulently oppose my philosophy of life. But, the fact is, there are people of that sort on either side of me, and the best I can hope for is that they cancel each other out.

This is a fundamental principle, which has broad application even to the scientific climate debate. Proponents of AGW believe in the “fragile Earth” hypothesis. They actually believe that the planet’s ecosystem is balanced on the edge of a knife, and can easily be pushed off its setpoint by the actions of humans. But, that hypothesis ignores the fact that, were the Earth’s climate system actually that fragile, we never would have made it even this far. Random drift would have pushed the climate up against the walls eons ago. By the very fact that it has not done so, we can infer that it takes powerful forces indeed to wrench the climate out of its preferred state. Our input is simply not that powerful.

Life can never be made perfect, only optimal. It is the pursuit of perfection without a sense of balance, of the practical and achievable, which is responsible for most of our ills.

What they’re doing is claiming that the ocean is warming up and they’re claiming that without a shred of proof.

You mean “evidence”, rather than proof, don’t you?

If you read beyond the executive summary, they cite the research and studies from which they derive the estimates.

Of course they have citations. They even cite Dr. Josh Willis. They want me to believe that the the ocean is warming below the thermocline. They want me to believe that the ocean is responding to events that take place in the stratosphere. They might as well ask me to believe in the Easter Bunny.

“A reasonable answer to rise in temperature below 700m is volcanic activity” – Myrrh (May 9, 1:21 am)
An intriguing possibility.
The recent NOAA report on global sea level rise reported global sea levels rising at only 1.2 mm/year from 2005 to 2012- less than half of the 3.1mm/year rate claimed by the IPCC- which lends support to Nils Axel Morner’s claims about the unreliability of TOPEX satellite data and suggests a re-examination of tide gauge historical records.
Global tide gauge data indicate that the rate of sea level rise has long-period variations with maximum rates about 1840 and 1980. If global sea levels were for long periods rising more rapidly than the present almost 2 centuries ago, how can periods of higher SLR rate only be attributable to increased radiative forcing effected by anthropogenic carbon dioxide?
The implication is that a significant component of SLR has a cause other than radiative forcing.

Hervey Bay is a great destination in its own right.
Basketball, soccer and rugby are favourite sports among
the locals in the city. Some communities, such as Bohol, have adopted eco-tourism,
giving them an economic reason to protect their local environment.

“Coulda woulda shoulda” is a liberal’s dream of a law’s unpinnings. There is only one way to get out of this folks. Change the political leanings of our lawmakers world wide.

When I was a child I thought the world’s problems could be solved by killing a few dictators: Stalin, Mao, Franco and others who I forget. What a waste of ammunition that would have been. If you think the world would be improved by getting rid of all the ‘liberals’ you are a very naive young whippersnapper.

I don’t see where Pamela Gray was advocating the violent change of the political leanings of the political class around the world. I think her position was more about how we change the political equations that drive politicians to take redistributionist policies as the easy way out. This will actually require advocacy and education of the scientific method to the population. It seems that that re-education needs to start in our academic institutions where the scientific method has been replaced by “post-normal science” and other political constructs masquerading as science. There also needs to be an extreme effort to educate people on the common logical fallacies passed off by politicians to scam the voters. Listen to any political speech by just about any politician of whatever stripe, and you will hear appeal to authority, false equivalence, and conclusions loaded up with emotionally charged language which have no logical bearing on the facts in evidence. If the people were to catch on to these techniques and punish at the poles the politicians who practice them, this would end. Politicians only do it because it works!

Yes, he totally misconstrued her point. In fact he pretty much butchered it like modern liberals ( USA term ) do to us here. But not only that, the Stalin example is not a good one. He was one picture-perfect example of the heaviest of top-heavy dictators around, with no like-minded successor in sight ( he killed them all ). Had Roosevelt given him the Yamamoto treatment after any of their conferences ( when you knew exactly where he was ) or preferably long beforehand, Russia and the world would have been far better off.